Page 11 of 46 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 21 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 684
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    22,126
    Quote Originally Posted by mysteriew View Post
    I am not the enemy. I want to see PG and NG convicted also. But reality is that the court has very stringent rules as to what is acceptable as evidence, and that the defendant has to have his rights protected. Also while most jurors would be more than happy to convict PG and NG only on Carl's word, odds are there will be at least one juror who will insist on more evidence to convict. And it only takes one juror.

    At least one juror will look at the case and see only what they don't have. No DNA, no fibers, no trace. No emergency room visits, doctor's visits or other verified evidence of injuries. No witness to the rapes, no witnesses to the incarceration. And no victim in court.

    With a loose explanation of the known evidence and no victim in front of them, they wouldn't convict. Because they would argue that for all they knew this kid ran away and did everything voluntarily.

    Jaycee's testimony is essential for a conviction IMO. IMO it is so essential that if she would refuse to testify, I would expect a prosecutor to supoena her to court in order to testify.
    I am completely and utterly baffled by this. No DNA? Where would you expect to find DNA in case such as this? Certainly prosecution can DNA test JC to prove she is in fact JC and then her children to show that they are her children, and who the father is.
    Other than that, what DNA are you talking about? Fibers? What fibers?
    Why would anyone care for fibers when JC was found with Garrido and his wife.


  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jjenny For This Useful Post:


  3. #152
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    22,126
    Quote Originally Posted by mysteriew View Post
    Just to be very clear, that statement that Jaycee went with the G's voluntarily is not what I believe happened, only that that is the type of thing the defense can bring up to cover the existing evidence, if Jaycee didn't testify about the abduction and abuse. I don't know that they will try that, only that they can try to imply that.
    She was 11 years old and her step father witnessed it. How exactly do you propose defense would convince someone she went with Garrido (a convicted sex offender) voluntarily?
    Last edited by jjenny; 10-10-2009 at 01:55 AM.


  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jjenny For This Useful Post:


  5. #153
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    massachusetts
    Posts
    6,348
    Quote Originally Posted by jjenny View Post
    I am completely and utterly baffled by this. No DNA? Where would you expect to find DNA in case such as this? Certainly prosecution can DNA test JC to prove she is in fact JC and then her children to show that they are her children, and who the father is.
    Other than that, what DNA are you talking about? Fibers? What fibers?
    Why would anyone care for fibers when JC was found with Garrido and his wife.
    plenty of dna. the girls dna nails his behind to the wall.
    i would think that both of the garridos lawyers know this is a long shot.
    thats why garrido's playing the loony card and his wife is playing the 'battered wife' syndrome. they know they cant escape with 'we wuz framed!'


  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kbl8201 For This Useful Post:


  7. #154
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,576
    Quote Originally Posted by mysteriew View Post
    Just to be very clear, that statement that Jaycee went with the G's voluntarily is not what I believe happened, only that that is the type of thing the defense can bring up to cover the existing evidence, if Jaycee didn't testify about the abduction and abuse. I don't know that they will try that, only that they can try to imply that.
    I did understand your post prior to my posting. I just felt strongly about the subject matter.


  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SunnieRN For This Useful Post:


  9. #155
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by jjenny View Post
    She was 11 years old and her step father witnessed it. How exactly do you propose defense would convince someone she went with Garrido (a convicted sex offender) voluntarily?
    They wouldnt need to do that, they could just claim that she arrived at the Garridos sometime in the 18 years after the kidnapping. They wouldnt need to prove when, they could just say (for example) that they found her on the highway 5 years after the kidnapping, and if there is no evidence to the contary the court would have to accept that. The prosecution are the ones who need to prove that it was directly after and as a result of the kidnapping, or they will not convict on that charge. That is why the testimony is crucial.


  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Natal For This Useful Post:


  11. #156
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by kbl8201 View Post
    plenty of dna. the girls dna nails his behind to the wall.
    i would think that both of the garridos lawyers know this is a long shot.
    thats why garrido's playing the loony card and his wife is playing the 'battered wife' syndrome. they know they cant escape with 'we wuz framed!'
    The only DNA that is relevant in this case is that of the girls, Jaycee and PG to establish paternity and maternity as evidence of at least one count of stat rape at a minimum. Potentially two if they can prove Angel's latest possible date of birth - there is probably some physiological characteristic that could be used to establish that Starlet had to have been concieved before Jaycee was 18 (allthough they wouldn't be able to prove before 14 using that method). No one is disputing that the girls and Jaycee were living at the Garrido residence when they were found, so their DNA would be all over the place.


  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Natal For This Useful Post:


  13. #157
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20,167
    Quote Originally Posted by mysteriew View Post
    I understand and can fully identify with the feeling. I am not an attorney or a law student. And my understanding of the hearsay law is weak, but we have had quite a few discussions on it here. A good place to start looking for discussions about the hearsay law is in the Peterson case.

    The college campus officers can testify as to what they saw, PG was there, and the girls later identified as the daughters of Jaycee and PG were there. And they can testify as to what actions they took, namely calling the parole officer. The parole officer can testify that he called PG into his office based on that call, and what he told him about bringing in household members. And that PG showed up with these members. But I'm not sure that he can say what PG or the others told him. The parole officer can testify as to what actions he took.

    Now if PG gets on the stand and denys that he ever admitted to kidnapping Jaycee, then the parole officer can be brought forward to rebut the denial. If PG signed any confessions, that can be brought into the trial, or if there is any recording of the confession. But PG can still recant, then it will be left up to the jury which story they believe.
    I think JC can identify plenty and has already talked plenty too.

    PG can deny all he wants - nobody would expect this SOB to be honest.

    JC came home with 2 kids 18 years after she had been kidnapped at the age of 11 - even Houdini could not change those facts.

    He is toast.
    Women are Angels.
    And when someone breaks our wings,
    we simply continue to fly... on a broomstick.

    We're flexible like that.


  14. #158
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Natal View Post
    The only DNA that is relevant in this case is that of the girls, Jaycee and PG to establish paternity and maternity as evidence of at least one count of stat rape at a minimum. Potentially two if they can prove Angel's latest possible date of birth - there is probably some physiological characteristic that could be used to establish that Starlet had to have been concieved before Jaycee was 18 (allthough they wouldn't be able to prove before 14 using that method). No one is disputing that the girls and Jaycee were living at the Garrido residence when they were found, so their DNA would be all over the place.
    YES the only DNA relevant is The girls and they have to take JC and PG to establish that.
    Unless grabbed the girls off the street too and told JC she had given birth while sleeping. NOT!
    no my computer is not having a glitch....I actualy dont know how to reply to 1/2 of this fantacy.

    As far as the argument about maybe Angel was not a result of rape. only Starlet Pleeeeezzz.

    JC was detained at his compound. Not free to leave. Let us just start there...the rest about her second child not being a result of rape ...
    I will not even dignify that statement at all. I find it to be insulting to JC.
    Last edited by songline; 10-10-2009 at 12:57 PM.
    Women are Angels.
    And when someone breaks our wings,
    we simply continue to fly... on a broomstick.

    We're flexible like that.


  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to songline For This Useful Post:


  16. #159
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Natal View Post
    They wouldnt need to do that, they could just claim that she arrived at the Garridos sometime in the 18 years after the kidnapping. They wouldnt need to prove when, they could just say (for example) that they found her on the highway 5 years after the kidnapping, and if there is no evidence to the contary the court would have to accept that. The prosecution are the ones who need to prove that it was directly after and as a result of the kidnapping, or they will not convict on that charge. That is why the testimony is crucial.

    Did you actualy write that BBM.
    Or is your computer having a glitch?
    Women are Angels.
    And when someone breaks our wings,
    we simply continue to fly... on a broomstick.

    We're flexible like that.


  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to songline For This Useful Post:


  18. #160
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,576
    Quote Originally Posted by mysteriew View Post
    Here is a good article about hearsay. It doesn't explain all of it, but gives some of the basics.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hearsay
    [QUOTE=JusticeForVictims;4268913][/COLOR]

    "It is the job of the judge or jury in a court proceeding to determine whether evidence offered as proof is credible. Three evidentiary rules help the judge or jury make this determination: (1) Before being allowed to testify, a witness generally must swear or affirm that his or her testimony will be truthful. (2) The witness must be personally present at the trial or proceeding in order to allow the judge or jury to observe the testimony firsthand. (3) The witness is subject to cross-examination at the option of any party who did not call the witness to testify."

    This quote was taken from the above article and gives reasoning why LE testimony is allowed. Not saying that every LE official is honest, but they use prisioners with hearsay evidence and I think that most of the time a LE official would be at least as credible a witness. (This last sentence is said tongue in cheek as I believe that for the most part, but not all, that LE is honest.)


  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SunnieRN For This Useful Post:


  20. #161
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Milpitas, CA
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by songline View Post
    where do you get 12 retards?

    In the local LE agency.


  21. The Following User Says Thank You to JulieNMM For This Useful Post:


  22. #162
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Natal View Post
    They wouldnt need to do that, they could just claim that she arrived at the Garridos sometime in the 18 years after the kidnapping. They wouldnt need to prove when, they could just say (for example) that they found her on the highway 5 years after the kidnapping, and if there is no evidence to the contary the court would have to accept that. The prosecution are the ones who need to prove that it was directly after and as a result of the kidnapping, or they will not convict on that charge. That is why the testimony is crucial.
    I'm happy she has a top notch law firm representing her & the good news is Her Lawyer has already stated she will testify in court if it makes it to court it will be a few years.(I have not quoted him word for word)
    We can all take a big sigh of relief that this prosecution team will win in court.

    I'm Repeating my own Quote. As it makes me happy to know this fact.

    I just felt the need to state my opinion again.
    I do feel a discussion can be useful on debating Prosecution vs Defense using the facts in each unique case.
    The the fact in this case is Prosecution has stated she will give her testimony when needed.
    You seem to make your final point clear that you say testimony is needed.
    The lawyer has addressed that already. Does this not satisfy you.

    Therefore why bother with all sorts of defense ideas that I feel are insulting towards the victims in this case and not necessary to put out into the universe?
    Let the defense in this case come up with their own creepy defense ideas.

    The witness in this case will make mince meat out of the defendants just like Elizabeth Smart has done in her case.

    That is hopefully my final worth.
    Janice
    Last edited by JusticeForVictims; 10-10-2009 at 01:40 PM.


  23. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JusticeForVictims For This Useful Post:


  24. #163
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20,167
    Quote Originally Posted by JulieNMM View Post
    In the local LE agency.

    Good one JulieNMM
    Women are Angels.
    And when someone breaks our wings,
    we simply continue to fly... on a broomstick.

    We're flexible like that.


  25. #164
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20,167
    Quote Originally Posted by JusticeForVictims View Post
    I'm happy she has a top notch law firm representing her & the good news is Her Lawyer has already stated she will testify in court if it makes it to court it will be a few years.(I have not quoted him word for word)
    We can all take a big sigh of relief that this prosecution team will win in court.

    I'm Repeating my own Quote. As it makes me happy to know this fact.

    I just felt the need to state my opinion again.
    I do feel a discussion can be useful on debating Prosecution vs Defense using the facts in each unique case.
    The the fact in this case is Prosecution has stated she will give her testimony when needed.
    You seem to make your final point clear that you say testimony is needed.
    The lawyer has addressed that already. Does this not satisfy you.

    Therefore why bother with all sorts of defense ideas that I feel are insulting towards the victims in this case and not necessary to put out into the universe?
    Let the defense in this case come up with their own creepy defense ideas.

    The witness in this case will make mince meat out of the defendants just like Elizabeth Smart has done in her case.

    That is hopefully my final worth.
    Janice
    Thank you...You said it much better then I have.
    I was just so baffled by some posts that I don't even know why I bothered to answer.
    Hopefully they wont play the "I am right card" LOL and will stop the insanity.

    I e-mailed her lawyer and he sounds like a very caring man. And he IS a great attorney.
    His last line in his reply was "I promise to do my very very best".
    I totally teared up from joy.

    My worth and the END
    Last edited by songline; 10-10-2009 at 01:52 PM.
    Women are Angels.
    And when someone breaks our wings,
    we simply continue to fly... on a broomstick.

    We're flexible like that.


  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to songline For This Useful Post:


  27. #165
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20,167
    Quote Originally Posted by kbl8201 View Post
    the parole violations should keep him in prison for good as it is
    but knowing these bafoons a clerical error will probably let him out

    I think you should bite your tongue. HE IS TOAST.
    and yes they are bafoons.
    Women are Angels.
    And when someone breaks our wings,
    we simply continue to fly... on a broomstick.

    We're flexible like that.


Page 11 of 46 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 21 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Patricia Garrido
    By LinasK in forum Jaycee Lee Dugard
    Replies: 562
    Last Post: 03-02-2010, 09:25 PM
  2. Vehicles owned or used by Garrido
    By ChaCha in forum Jaycee Lee Dugard
    Replies: 132
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 12:56 AM
  3. Charges Against Philip and Nancy Garrido
    By MBK in forum Jaycee Lee Dugard
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 10-11-2009, 09:32 PM
  4. Nancy Garrido
    By arielilane in forum Jaycee Lee Dugard
    Replies: 329
    Last Post: 09-26-2009, 09:38 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •